• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

医学专家进行的主动脉瘤修复风险评估与美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划风险计算器的结果比较。

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

作者信息

van Schaik Jan, Hers Tessa M, van Rijswijk Carla Sp, Schooneveldt Maaike S, Putter Hein, Eefting Daniël, van der Vorst Joost R

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

Department of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Apr 8;10:20480040211006582. doi: 10.1177/20480040211006582. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.

DOI:10.1177/20480040211006582
PMID:33889384
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8040563/
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes.

METHODS

Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test.

RESULTS

All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.

摘要

目的

这项基于在线临床病例的调查研究旨在比较荷兰参与治疗主动脉瘤患者的血管外科医生、麻醉医生和介入放射科医生的风险评估与NSQIP风险计算器的结果。

方法

采用目的抽样法招募参与者,他们对五个虚构病例中主动脉手术后并发症和事件的发生可能性进行估计。随后使用NSQIP计算器对这些病例进行评分。使用方差分析和学生t检验对风险评估进行统计分析。

结果

所有参与的专家,即12名血管外科医生、10名介入放射科医生和10名麻醉医生完成了调查。在绝大多数结果和病例中,不同专家之间未发现显著差异,而NSQIP风险计算器的结果与专家的综合风险评估之间存在显著差异。总体而言,专家的风险评估与NSQIP不同,但与风险计算器相比既没有特别高也没有特别低。

结论

在血管内和开放性主动脉瘤修复的框架内,血管外科医生、麻醉医生和介入放射科医生的风险评估与NSQIP风险计算器的结果存在显著差异。基于这些结果,在术前检查中应用NSQIP风险计算器在患者规划以及充分告知患者以获得同意方面可能具有附加价值。

相似文献

1
Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.医学专家进行的主动脉瘤修复风险评估与美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划风险计算器的结果比较。
JRSM Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Apr 8;10:20480040211006582. doi: 10.1177/20480040211006582. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
2
Performance of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement calculator for early postoperative outcomes following bile duct repair hepaticojejunostomy.美国外科医师学院国家手术质量改进计算器在胆管修复胆肠吻合术后早期术后结果中的表现。
Langenbecks Arch Surg. 2021 Sep;406(6):1935-1942. doi: 10.1007/s00423-021-02133-9. Epub 2021 May 22.
3
Can the American College of Surgeons Risk Calculator Predict 30-day Complications After Spine Surgery?美国外科医师学院风险计算器能否预测脊柱手术后 30 天的并发症?
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 May 1;45(9):621-628. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003340.
4
Predictive performance of the American College of Surgeons universal risk calculator in neurosurgical patients.美国外科医师学院通用风险计算器在神经外科患者中的预测性能。
J Neurosurg. 2018 Mar;128(3):942-947. doi: 10.3171/2016.11.JNS161377. Epub 2017 Apr 28.
5
Inaccurate Risk Assessment by the ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator in Aortic Surgery.美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS NSQIP)风险计算器在主动脉手术中进行的风险评估不准确。
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 20;10(22):5426. doi: 10.3390/jcm10225426.
6
Estimating risk of adverse cardiac event after vascular surgery using currently available online calculators.利用现有的在线计算器评估血管手术后不良心脏事件的风险。
J Vasc Surg. 2018 Jan;67(1):272-278. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2017.06.105. Epub 2017 Oct 21.
7
Assessment of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Calculator in Predicting Outcomes and Length of Stay After Ivor Lewis Esophagectomy: A Single-Center Experience.美国外科医师学院国家外科质量改进计划计算器在预测 Ivor Lewis 食管切除术术后结局和住院时间中的评估:单中心经验。
J Surg Res. 2020 Nov;255:355-360. doi: 10.1016/j.jss.2020.05.080. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
8
Self-reported mobility as a preoperative risk assessment tool in older surgical patients compared to the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program.与美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划相比,自我报告的活动能力作为老年手术患者术前风险评估工具的研究
Perioper Med (Lond). 2018 Jun 19;7:12. doi: 10.1186/s13741-018-0095-6. eCollection 2018.
9
Predictive validity of American College of Surgeons: National Surgical Quality Improvement Project risk calculator in patients with ovarian cancer undergoing interval debulking surgery.美国外科医师学院:国家外科质量改进计划风险计算器在接受间隔减瘤手术的卵巢癌患者中的预测有效性。
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2021 Oct;31(10):1356-1362. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2021-002772. Epub 2021 Sep 13.
10
Can the American College of Surgeons NSQIP surgical risk calculator identify patients at risk of complications following microsurgical breast reconstruction?美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(NSQIP)手术风险计算器能否识别出显微外科乳房重建术后有并发症风险的患者?
J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016 Oct;69(10):1356-62. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2016.05.021. Epub 2016 Jun 1.

引用本文的文献

1
Predicting Risk of Post-Operative Morbidity and Mortality following Gynaecological Oncology Surgery (PROMEGO): A Global Gynaecological Oncology Surgical Outcomes Collaborative Led Study.预测妇科肿瘤手术后的发病和死亡风险(PROMEGO):一项由全球妇科肿瘤手术结果协作组牵头的研究。
Cancers (Basel). 2024 May 26;16(11):2021. doi: 10.3390/cancers16112021.
2
Inaccurate Risk Assessment by the ACS NSQIP Risk Calculator in Aortic Surgery.美国外科医师学会国家外科质量改进计划(ACS NSQIP)风险计算器在主动脉手术中进行的风险评估不准确。
J Clin Med. 2021 Nov 20;10(22):5426. doi: 10.3390/jcm10225426.

本文引用的文献

1
Large Diameter (≥29 mm) Proximal Aortic Necks Are Associated with Increased Complication Rates after Endovascular Repair for Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.大直径(≥29毫米)的腹主动脉近端颈部与腹主动脉瘤血管内修复术后并发症发生率增加相关。
Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Oct;60:70-75. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2019.02.031. Epub 2019 May 8.
2
Validation of a preoperative prediction model for mortality within 1 year after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair of intact aneurysms.验证一种用于完整型腹主动脉瘤腔内修复术后 1 年内死亡率的术前预测模型。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Aug;70(2):449-461.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.10.122. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
3
Predictors of in-hospital adverse events after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair.
血管内主动脉瘤修复术后住院期间不良事件的预测因素。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 Jul;70(1):80-91. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.10.093. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
4
Endovascular aneurysm repair in patients with a wide proximal aortic neck: a systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.近端主动脉颈较宽的患者的血管内动脉瘤修复术:一项比较研究的系统评价和荟萃分析
J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino). 2019 Apr;60(2):167-174. doi: 10.23736/S0021-9509.19.10869-5. Epub 2019 Jan 18.
5
Editor's Choice - European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2019 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-iliac Artery Aneurysms.编辑推荐——欧洲血管外科学会(ESVS)2019年腹主动脉-髂动脉瘤管理临床实践指南
Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2019 Jan;57(1):8-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2018.09.020. Epub 2018 Dec 5.
6
ACS-NSQIP risk calculator predicts cohort but not individual risk of complication following colorectal resection.ACS-NSQIP 风险计算器预测队列但不能预测结直肠切除术后并发症的个体风险。
Am J Surg. 2019 Jul;218(1):131-135. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2018.11.017. Epub 2018 Nov 28.
7
Vignette methodologies for studying clinicians' decision-making: Validity, utility, and application in ICD-11 field studies.用于研究临床医生决策的案例法:在国际疾病分类第11版实地研究中的有效性、实用性及应用
Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2015 May-Aug;15(2):160-170. doi: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001. Epub 2015 Jan 29.
8
Anatomic predictors for late mortality after standard endovascular aneurysm repair.标准血管内动脉瘤修复术后晚期死亡率的解剖学预测因素。
J Vasc Surg. 2019 May;69(5):1444-1451. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2018.07.082. Epub 2018 Nov 23.
9
Man against the machine - Differences in surgical risk evaluation. A cohort prospective study.人与机器的较量——手术风险评估的差异。一项队列前瞻性研究。
Int J Surg. 2018 Dec;60:252-256. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2018.11.012. Epub 2018 Nov 22.
10
Survival and Reintervention Risk by Patient Age and Preoperative Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Diameter after Endovascular Aneurysm Repair.
Ann Vasc Surg. 2019 Jan;54:215-225. doi: 10.1016/j.avsg.2018.05.053. Epub 2018 Aug 4.